FDI: Solon’s misplaced fear?
“We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them”, so said, accurately, the epigrammatic New York writer Christian Nestell Bovee. Simply put, the more ignorant we are, the more dominant fear shall be. However, more often, we see people trying to fake fear or use it as camouflage to hide their real motives or to perpetuate their selfish deeds.
In trying to understand these two possible scenarios, we shall take a look at one of the most low-keyed (or, if not, simply set aside or buried in the corner because of the more dominating Binay-Trillanes planned debate) pronouncement of Valenzuela City Representative Sherwin Gatchalian (a member of the House Committee on Trade and Industry). He expressed his fear or concern in changing “constitutional provisions on land ownership, noting that foreign ownership would affect the country's food security.”
The lawmaker, in articulating his supposedly favorable views in amending the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution to attract foreign direct investments, said that “he is in favor of amending economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution to improve the country's economic performance, but noted that altering the current 60-40 provision that allows 40 percent foreign ownership and allowing 100 percent foreign ownership may entice farmers to sell their farmlands.”
So that, he further said, “Instead, the government must look at small farmers as partners to reaching that goal. It should safeguard our farmers' right to till their land and not allow big-time foreign corporate individuals and firms to claim our land.”
In asserting his views, he cited a report from the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization which stated that “nine out of 10 of the world's 570 million farms are managed by families, which produce 80 percent of the world's food.” And that, the “produce of these family farms affect over 800 million people, making it vital to the solution of the hunger problem.”
Frankly, there is no quarrel about the aforementioned facts from FAO. However, there are dark undertones as far as his claims that allowing 100 percent foreign ownership may entice small farmers to sell their farmlands. We say, dark undertones, because as a lawmaker, he knows that this will never happen.
First and foremost, most of our small farmers are beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657). As a lawmaker, he should be fully aware that Section 27 (Transferability of Awarded Lands) of this act specifically provides that “Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten years: Provided, however, that the children or the spouse of the transfer or shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two years.” If not repurchased by the children or spouse, it goes through a long process and shall satisfy many conditions before it can be transferred to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other CARP beneficiaries. More importantly, no transfers can be made without the prior approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
Moreover, he fears that the land maybe utilized for other uses other than food production. In this respect, Section 65 (Conversion of Lands) of the same act provides that “After the lapse of five years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition.”
Clearly, there is no transfer that can be made outside of the heirs of the beneficiaries or not to anyone who is not a CARP beneficiary. Likewise, there is no conversion without sufficient justification. Also, there are no conversions that do not go through the DAR.
Apparently, therefore, some oligarchs (who are in politics or have strong political influences) with unquenchable thirst for power and money are simply making up stories to advance their personal interests. After all, who benefits from these foreign ownership restrictions? Frankly, the oligarchs or the affluent families not those in dire straits. Why? Because they have the money to put up as counterparts in 60:40 corporations. Or, if foreign companies should opt to use Filipino dummies, who else will they go to but the moneyed individuals because they have the assets or resources that can back them up, “on paper,” their supposed ownership in the corporation. Definitely, they agreed to it not for free but for a fee.
Thus, is there anything to fear? None, because nothing exists. Misplaced fear? Neither. Greed? Yes. Let’s be honest.
- Latest
